FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok testifies before the House Committees on the Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform during a hearing on “Oversight of FBI and DOJ Actions Surrounding the 2016 Election,” on Capitol Hill, Thursday, July 12, 2018, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Judicial Watch received a copy of the July 31, 2016 “electronic communication” which opened the FBI’s counter-intelligence investigation into the Trump campaign, otherwise known as Operation Crossfire Hurricane. This document was obtained via a FOIA lawsuit against the DOJ and the FBI. It can be viewed here and it is reprinted below this post.

Tom Fitton, the founder and president of Judicial Watch, issued the following statement:

No wonder the DOJ and FBI resisted the public release of this infamous ‘electronic communication’ that ‘opened’ Crossfire Hurricane – it shows there was no serious basis for the Obama administration to launch an unprecedented spy operation on the Trump campaign. We now have more proof that Crossfire Hurricane was a scam, based on absurd gossip and innuendo. This document is Exhibit A to Obamagate, the worst corruption scandal in American history. This document shows how Attorney General Barr and U.S. Attorney Durham are right to question the predicate of this spy operation.

According to Judicial Watch, the DOJ and the FBI fought against the release of this memo for over two years. In February 2018, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), then-chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, requested an unredacted copy of the EC and received a heavily redacted copy. After much effort, members of the Intelligence Committee were able to view a lightly redacted copy of the document, however, it was not released publicly. It still contained some redactions which the DOJ indicated were “narrowly tailored to protect the name of a foreign country and the name of a foreign agent.”

The memo was written by Peter Strzok.

All of the names of deep staters were redacted in the version sent to Judicial Watch. It’s amazing that the FBI was able to open an investigation based on third-hand information. The memo states that the reason for this investigation is “to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign are witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia.” Did any member of the Trump campaign engage in a violation of the Foreign Agent Registration Act?

In a nutshell, Australian diplomat Alexander Downer told [redacted] that two months prior, in a London bar, he had spoken to Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos said that two months earlier, a professor told him, “(the Russians) could assist the Trump campaign with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.”

Just the News’ John Solomon points out that Strzok noted the limitations of the allegations. The memo states, “It was unclear whether he [Papadopoulos] or the Russians were referring to material acquired publicly or through other means. It was also unclear how Mr. Trump’s team reacted to the offer.”

Former FBI official Kevin Brock spoke to Solomon about the document. He said it “did not meet the bureau’s rigorous standards for predicating the opening of a criminal or counterintelligence case.”

(Funny that IG Horowitz believed it had been properly predicated.)

Brock continued. “There is nothing in the EC that meets the traditional thresholds for opening up a FARA or CI investigation. It appears hastily constructed.”

He noted it was unusual that Strzok had “both drafted and approved the opening of his own investigation and originally segregated the memo so it could only be seen by “case participants” and not other FBI officials.”

Solomon asked Brock if he would have approved this investigation based on the document provided by Strzok. He replied, “Not in a millions years. I wouldn’t have approved it as a squad supervisor either. This would have set off alarm bells in any FBI field [office] for not meeting our standards for a predicate.”

All I can say is that someone must be held accountable for perpetrating this fraud or this will happen again.

Interestingly, last week, Attorney General William Barr explained that not every abuse of power—no matter how outrageous—is necessarily a federal crime. I understand that. I am not a lawyer, but knowingly opening a fraudulent investigation and deliberately setting out to entrap a political enemy sure sound like crimes to me. Readers?

Synopsis:(U/ /FOUO) Legat [Redacted] received information from the [Redacted] Deputy Chief of Mission related to the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s website/server.

Details:(S/ /REL TO USA[Redacted] On Wednesday, July 27, 2016, Legal Attaché (Legat) [Redacted] was summoned to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) for the [Redacted] who will be leaving [Redacted] post Saturday July 30, 2016 and set to soon thereafter retire from government service, advised [Redacted] was called by [Redacted] about an urgent matter requiring an in person meeting with the U.S. Ambassador. [Note: [Redacted]. The [Redacted] was scheduled to be away from post until mid-August, therefore [Redacted] attended the meeting.

(S/ [Redacted]) [Redacted] advised that [Redacted] government had been seeking prominent members of the Donald Trump campaign in which to engage to prepare for potential post-election relations should Trump be elected U.S. President. One of the people identified was George Papadopolous (although public media sources provide a spelling of Papadopoulos), who was believed to be one of Donald Trump’s foreign policy advisers. Mr. Papdopoulos was located in [Redacted] so the [Redacted] met with him on several occasions, with [Redacted] attending at least one of the meetings.

(S/ [Redacted]) [Redacted] recalled [Redacted] of the meetings between Mr. Papdopolous and [Redacted] concerning statements Mr. Papadopolous made about suggestions from the Russians that they (the Russians) could assist the Trump campaign with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton. [Redacted] provided a copy of the reporting that was provided to [Redacted] from [Redacted] to Legal [Redacted]. The text is exactly as follows:

(Begin Text)

(S/ [Redacted]) 5. Mr. Papadopolous [Redacted] also suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton (and President Obama). It was unclear whether he or the Russians were referring to material acquired publicly of through other means. It was also unclear how Mr. Trump’s team reacted to the offer. We note the Trump team’s reaction could, in the end, have little bearing of what Russia decides to do, with or without Mr. Trump’s cooperation.(End Text)

(s/ [Redacted][Redacted](s/ [Redacted] Legat requests that further action on this information should consider the sensitivity that this information was provided through informal diplomatic channels from [Redacted] to the U.S. Embassy’s DCM. It was clear from the conversation Legal [Redacted]had with DCM that [Redacted] knew follow-up by the U.S. government would be necessary, but extraordinary efforts should be made to protect the source of this information until such a time that a request from our organization can be made to [Redacted] to obtain this information through formal channels.

END EMAIL

(S/ / CC/NF) Based on the information provided by Legat [Redacted] this investigation is being opened to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign are witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia.